Tax provision: determining the financial statement impact

Tax provision: determining the financial statement impact

Disclaimer ►

► ►

►

(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit www.ey.com. Ernst & Young LLP is a client-serving member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited operating in the US. This presentation is © 2014 Ernst & Young LLP. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, transmitted or otherwise distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, rekeying, or using any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from Ernst & Young LLP. Any reproduction, transmission or distribution of this form or any of the material herein is prohibited and is in violation of US and international law. Ernst & Young LLP expressly disclaims any liability in connection with use of this presentation or its contents by any third party. Views expressed in this presentation are not necessarily those of Ernst & Young LLP.

Page 2

Ninth Annual International Tax Reporting Conference | New York | 30 May 2014

Circular 230 disclaimer ►

►

(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

Any US tax advice contained herein was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions. These slides are for educational purposes only and are not intended, and should not be relied upon, as accounting advice.

Page 3


Today’s presenters

Jon Baronowski

Eric Sapperstein

Ernst & Young LLP Stamford, CT

Ernst & Young LLP New York, NY

Peter Amster Ernst & Young LLP Milwaukee, WI

Page 4


Key elements of quantitative analysis ►

(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

C. A. M. P. ►

Compliance ►

►

Attributes ►

►

►

Planning Tax reform

Provision ►

Page 5

Earnings and profits (E&P), tax pools, basis, foreign tax credit (FTC) limitation/carryover, dual consolidated losses (DCLs), overall foreign loss (OFL)

Modeling ►

►

Forms 5471, 8865 and 8858, 1118, white paper disclosure statements

Financial statement impact


Overall considerations with provision ► ► ►

(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

Impact of tax accounting on intercompany tax planning transactions Deferred tax accounting for outside basis differences and impacts on global planning strategy Tax accounting treatment of transaction may be less clear than tax treatment! ► ►

►

Page 6

Application of accounting guidance potentially subject to greater interpretation than tax rules Inappropriate to conclude here on appropriate tax accounting guidance to these transactions without specific facts and circumstances Intent here is to highlight the tax accounting issues that need follow-up and assessment Ninth Annual International Tax Reporting Conference | New York | 30 May 2014

Provision tax accounting rules to consider ►

(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

Accounting Research Bulletin (ARB) 51 – ASC 740-10-253(e) and Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 81010-45-8 and consolidated financial statements ►

►

►

Page 7

For financial statement (F/S) purposes, intercompany transactions and carrying value increases/decreases are eliminated in consolidation. ARB 51 deals with accounting for the tax effects on intercompany sales of property between F/S group members. For transactions covered by ARB 51, the current tax expense/benefit is treated as a prepaid expense/benefit. Prepaid is recognized through generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) income statement (I/S) as the intercompany property leaves the F/S group or is depreciated/amortized. Deferred taxes on new basis differentials created from intercompany transactions are not recognized. Ninth Annual International Tax Reporting Conference | New York | 30 May 2014

Provision tax accounting rules to consider (ARB 51) ►

(P)rovision (A)ttributes

ARB 51 commonly applied to intercompany sales of: ► ► ►

►

(M)odeling

Inventory Property, plant and equipment Intangible property

ARB 51 Less commonly applied to intercompany transfers of: ► ► ►

Page 8

Shares/stock of consolidated group members Intercompany debt Transaction involving losses


(C)ompliance


(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

Accounting Principles Board (APB) 23 – ASC 740-30 and outside basis differences ►

►

General presumption is that the excess of financial reporting amounts over tax basis in an investment in a subsidiary will reverse and that such difference requires deferred tax accounting. ASC 740-30-25-18 rebuts the general presumption that the excess of financial reporting amount of an investment in a foreign subsidiary or foreign corporate joint venture will reverse. Under this exception, the excess GAAP value over tax basis is viewed as being essentially permanent in duration – APB 23 assertion ►

Page 9

Sufficient evidence is required to support the notion that subsidiary has invested or will invest undistributed earnings indefinitely or that the earnings will be remitted in a tax-free liquidation.



(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

ASC 740-30-25-9 and prohibition on recognition of deferred tax assets (DTAs) on outside basis difference ►

A DTA is recognized for an excess of tax basis over financial reporting amount of an investment in a subsidiary or corporate joint venture only if it is apparent that such difference will reverse in the foreseeable future ►

►

(M)odeling

Prohibits recognition of DTAs for outside basis differences for foreign subsidiaries/joint ventures (JVs) in many instances

Valuation allowance ►

Page 10

DTAs require measurement that it is “more likely than not” that it will be realized in full. Where the more likely than not (MLTN) standard is not met, a valuation allowance reserve is required to state the DTA at its realizable value. Ninth Annual International Tax Reporting Conference | New York | 30 May 2014

Provision components ►

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

US tax provision on domestic operations ►

►

(M)odeling

DTA and deferred tax liability (DTL) for inside basis difference

US tax provision on foreign operations ► ►

Page 11

Current tax on income from foreign operation subject to tax in the US currently – dividends (deemed and actual), foreign tax credit Deferred taxes on outside basis differences on investment in foreign subsidiaries and other foreign investments


Thoughts about transactions ►

►

(C)ompliance

Section 304 Section 368(a)(1)(D) reorganization with check-the-box election

Other transactions/variations ► ► ► ►

►


Key transactions for discussion ►

►

(M)odeling

Section 351 transfers Aspects of parent-subsidiary versus brother-sister (304(a)(1) vs 304(a)(2)) US-to-foreign and foreign-to-foreign transactions Transactions with boot

Assume the following slides are not a part of purchase accounting transactions as it could result in a number of different outcomes

Page 12


Section 304 transaction

(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

Provision assumptions Simplified structure

Overview ►

1

USP

►

Foreign Holdco

2

USP CFC1

US GAAP tax accounting considerations

CFC2 ►

Foreign Holdco

US shareholder owns Foreign Holdco and that the Foreign Holdco owns two separate controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) (CFC1 and CFC2) Foreign Holdco transfers CFC1 to CFC2 in exchange for property in a transaction that US tax rules recognize as a Section 304 transaction

► ►

Does ARB 51 apply How might the transfer be accounted for under US GAAP? Outside basis tax accounting issues and APB 23 posture

CFC2

CFC1

Page 13


Section 304 transaction: tax accounting issues ►

(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

Is the transaction treated as an intercompany sale subject to ARB 51? ► ►

Gain or loss recognized by Foreign Holdco on separate company basis is eliminated in consolidation. Current tax expense/benefit recognized by Foreign Holdco treated as prepaid item ►

►

No deferred taxes recognized on new outside basis differential ►

►

Buyer gets fair market value tax basis, carryover GAAP basis

Need to determine period over which gain and current tax impact is recognized through income statement ►

Page 14

Gain/loss and current tax impact not recognized in income statement in year of transfer

ARB 51 generally applies to sale of inventory and property, plant and equipment (PP&E). Usually no similar intent to sell subsidiary shares outside of the group.



(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

If Section 304 transaction (i.e., transfer of shares) is not subject to ARB 51 ►

► ►

Non-application of ARB 51 more often the case for GAAP since there really is not a “natural” recognition period like depreciation/amortization life for recognizing tax effects that get put up on the balance sheet Recognize current tax impact in year of Section 304 transaction Elimination of intercompany gain/loss in F/S consolidation results in permanent tax rate impact ►

Page 15

Can be a positive or negative impact



(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

Does the transfer of CFC1 to CFC2 change the overall APB 23 posture? ►

► ►

Was Foreign Holdco asserting APB 23 with respect to outside basis difference in CFC1 before the transfer and will this still be the case after the transfer of CFC1 to CFC2? Should there be a change in the assertion for CFC2 if the 304 dividend is sourced out of its E&P? Does Foreign Holdco’s GAAP basis in CFC2 change? Does Foreign Holdco’s tax basis in CFC2 change? ► ►

►

Page 16

US views the Section 304 transaction as a capital contribution of CFC1’s shares to CFC2 followed by a dividend distribution and/or return of capital. What is the impact of a change in CFC Holdco’s outside basis differential? ► Transaction consideration may reduce GAAP carrying value ► What happens to tax basis from a local jurisdiction perspective? What if one of the CFCs was in a tax> than book basis differential position before and was precluded from recognizing DTA. Does that “DTA” get recognized now as a reduction of the other’s DTL?



(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

Does the transfer of CFC1 to CFC2 change the APB 23 posture? ►

►

Page 17

If transfer results in a change to outside basis difference and deferred tax needs, x, need to recognize such impact through income statement Determination that subsidiary is no longer permanently reinvested usually is made before the transaction. In what period is it appropriate to recognize such change in assertion impact – period decision is made to do transaction or period in which transaction is completed?



(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

Does the transfer of CFC1 to CFC2 result in a Subpart F recognition? ►

► ► ► ►

Page 18

Transaction may be a dividend from CFC2 to Foreign Holdco for US tax purposes to extent of CFC2’s E&P or a dividend from CFC1 to Foreign Holdco. With the expiration of CFC look-through rules, is such a dividend Subpart F at the CFC Holdco level? Current tax recognition at USP level? Subpart F exceptions like high tax, same country? What if USP is asserting permanent reinvestment at the Foreign Holdco shareholding level? If CFC2 cannot/does not assert APB 23 for CFC1, does expected reversal of outside basis difference via dividend distribution from CFC1 to CFC2 result in Subpart F income at CFC2? Ninth Annual International Tax Reporting Conference | New York | 30 May 2014

Type “D” reorganization with checkthe-box

(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

Provision assumptions

Simplified structure

Overview ►

1

USP ►

Foreign Holdco

2

USP CFC1

US shareholder owns Foreign Holdco and Foreign Holdco owns CFC subsidiaries in two separate ownership chains, CFC1 and CFC2. Foreign Holdco transfers CFC1 to CFC2 in exchange for shares/additional equity and/or cash after which/as a part of which CFC1 is checked as a disregarded entity (DRE) for US tax purposes in a transaction that is meant to be a “D” reorganization.

CFC2

US GAAP tax accounting considerations Foreign Holdco

► ► ►

CFC2

Outside basis tax accounting issues and APB 23 posture Transaction with boot Risks if transaction is a Section 351 transfer and Section 332 liquidation

DRE1

Page 19


Type “D” reorganization: tax accounting issues ►

(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

Does the transfer of CFC1 to CFC2 change the overall outside basis posture? ►

► ►

Was Foreign Holdco asserting APB 23 with respect to outside basis difference in CFC1 before the transfer and will this still be the case after the transfer? Should there be a change in the assertion for CFC2? Does Foreign Holdco’s GAAP basis in CFC2 change? Does Foreign Holdco’s tax basis in CFC2 change? ►

► ►

Page 20

US views the “D” reorganization as a transfer of CFC1’s assets to CFC2 in exchange for CFC2 shares after which CFC1 is deemed to liquidate into Foreign Holdco What is the impact of a change in Foreign Holdco’s outside basis differential? What if one of the CFCs was in a tax> than book basis differential position before and was precluded from recognizing DTA. Does that DTA get recognized now as a reduction of the other’s DTL?


Type “D” reorganization: tax accounting issues ►

►

(M)odeling

(P)rovision

(C)ompliance

(A)ttributes

If transfer results in a change to outside basis difference and deferred tax needs, need to recognize such impact through the income statement. Determination that subsidiary is no longer reinvested usually is made before the transaction. In what period is it appropriate to recognize such change in assertion impact: period decision is made to do transaction or period in which transaction is completed?

Page 21


Questions and conference close ► ►

(M)odeling

Questions? Closing remarks

Page 22



(C)ompliance

Contacts

Jon Baronowski

Eric Sapperstein

Ernst & Young LLP | Stamford, CT +1 203 674 3448 [email protected]

Ernst & Young LLP | New York, NY +1 212 773 3353 [email protected]

Peter Amster Ernst & Young LLP | Milwaukee, WI +1 414 223 7226 [email protected]

Page 23


Tax provision: determining the financial statement impact

Recommend Documents